[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ubuntu and CDDs

El mié, 29-09-2004 a las 13:54 +0200, Miguel A. Arévalo escribió:
> El mar, 28-09-2004 a las 22:37 -0400, Benj. Mako Hill escribió:


> > > I think that if the developers working for companies on Debian
> > > should push for a time-based release cycle as a GR it would be
> > > aproved with great joy. Of course with a release cycle more in the
> > > like of Red Hat Enterprise than GNOME's or Ubuntu's 6 months.
> > 
> > I think this is wishful thinking. The release managers *wanted* a 1
> > year release cycle. It didn't happen. d-i wasn't ready, the social
> > contract changed and the release critical bugs were simply not
> > fixed. You can't create a GR to force Debian to go fix release
> > critical bugs buy a certain date! You can, but it won't work.
> I think that the way of fixing this unpredictability is lobbying inside
> Debian to go for a time-based release cycle, not forking. And yes, I can
> create a GR to force it: If a package is not ready at a certain date it
> won't be on the Debian release. This will work out perfectly apart from
> base, but this is smaller and more predictable.
> For example d-i was not ready not only for sarge, but also for woody, if
> six months before the date marked for woody release they had recovered
> the boot-floppies woody would have been out it time.

 Well, technically you cannot propose any GR ;-)

 And I think that no GR is needed. More important than GRs is people
wanting to do it, not being forced to do so. RMs have enough power to
make time based release, but most people in Debian need to want (or
realize that they want) this kind of release.

 One important point is that GNOME is doing it and it's doing it well,
but Debian is another different beast. Also, having a time-based
release, make people know that if something they want is not in this
stable release, it will in only 1,5 years from now, and not an undefined
time. But all these are ideas that have been disccussed (and flamed)
till end in debian-devel other times they have been told.

 And for boot-floppies stuff, I think that everyone will agree with you
that waiting for d-i when it was not still ready was an error. The first
one who will tell you that (and have done yet in his blog) is joey.


Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente

Reply to: